Practical relevance: Feline hypertension is a common disease in older cats that is frequently diagnosed in association with other diseases such as chronic kidney disease and hyperthyroidism (so-called secondary hypertension), although some cases of apparent primary hypertension are also reported. The clinical consequences of hypertension can be severe, related to ‘target organ damage’ (eye, heart and vasculature, brain and kidneys), and early diagnosis followed by appropriate therapeutic management should help reduce the morbidity associated with this condition. Clinical challenges: Despite being a common disease, routine blood pressure (BP) monitoring is generally performed infrequently, probably leading to underdiagnosis of feline hypertension in clinical practice. There is a need to: (i) ensure BP is measured as accurately as possible with a reproducible technique; (ii) identify and monitor patients at risk of developing hypertension; (iii) establish appropriate criteria for therapeutic intervention; and (iv) establish appropriate therapeutic targets. Based on current data, amlodipine besylate is the treatment of choice to manage feline hypertension and is effective in the majority of cats, but the dose needed to successfully manage hypertension varies between individuals. Some cats require long-term adjuvant therapy and, occasionally, additional therapy is necessary for emergency management of hypertensive crises. Evidence base: These Guidelines from the International Society of Feline Medicine (ISFM) are based on a comprehensive review of the currently available literature, and are aimed at providing practical recommendations to address the challenges of feline hypertension for veterinarians. There are many areas where more data is required which, in the future, will serve to confirm or modify some of the recommendations in these Guidelines.

Practical relevance: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a common endocrinopathy in cats that appears to be increasing in prevalence. The prognosis for affected cats can be good when the disease is well managed, but clinical management presents challenges, both for the veterinary team and for the owner. These ISFM Guidelines have been developed by an independent, international expert panel of clinicians and academics to provide practical advice on the management of routine (uncomplicated) diabetic cats.Clinical challenges: Although the diagnosis of diabetes is usually straightforward, optimal management can be challenging. Clinical goals should be to limit or eliminate clinical signs of the disease using a treatment regimen suitable for the owner, and to avoid insulin-induced hypoglycaemia or other complications. Optimising bodyweight, feeding an appropriate diet and using a longer acting insulin preparation (eg, protamine zinc insulin, insulin glargine or insulin detemir) are all factors that are likely to result in improved glycaemic control in the majority of cats. There is also some evidence that improved glycaemic control and reversal of glucose toxicity may promote the chances of diabetic remission. Owner considerations and owner involvement are an important aspect of management. Provided adequate support is given, and owners are able to take an active role in monitoring blood glucose concentrations in the home environment, glycaemic control may be improved. Monitoring of other parameters is also vitally important in assessing the response to insulin. Insulin adjustments should always be made cautiously and not too frequently – unless hypoglycaemia is encountered.Evidence base: The Panel has produced these Guidelines after careful review of the existing literature and of the quality of the published studies. They represent a consensus view on practical management of cats with DM based on available clinical data and experience. However, in many areas, substantial data are lacking and there is a need for better studies in the future to help inform and refine recommendations for the clinical management of this common disease.

Objectives: Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) is a serious disease that arises due to feline coronavirus infection. The nucleoside analogues remdesivir and GS-441524 can be effective in its treatment, but most studies have used unregulated products of unknown composition. The aim of the present study was to describe the treatment of FIP using legally sourced veterinary-prescribed regulated veterinary compounded products containing known amounts of remdesivir (injectable) or GS-441524 (oral tablets). Methods: Cats were recruited via email advice services, product sales contacts and study publicity. Cats were excluded if they were deemed unlikely to have FIP, were not treated exclusively with the veterinary compounded products, or if there was a lack of cat and/or treatment (including response) data. Extensive cat and treatment data were collected. Results: Among the 307 cats recruited, the predominant type of FIP was most commonly abdominal effusive (49.5%) and then neurological (14.3%). Three treatment protocols were used; remdesivir alone (33.9%), remdesivir followed by GS-441524 (55.7%) and GS-441524 alone (10.4%). The median (range) initial treatment period duration and longest follow-up time point after starting treatment were 84 (1–330) days and 248 (1–814) days, respectively. The most common side effect was injection pain (in 47.8% of those given subcutaneous remdesivir). Of the 307 cats, 33 (10.8%) relapsed, 15 (45.5%) during and 18 (54.5%) after the initial treatment period. At the longest follow-up time point after completion of the initial treatment period, 84.4% of cats were alive. The cats achieving a complete response within 30 days of starting treatment were significantly more likely to be alive at the end of the initial treatment period than those cats that did not. Conclusions and relevance: Legally sourced remdesivir and GS-441524 products, either alone or used sequentially, were very effective in the treatment of FIP in this group of cats. Variable protocols precluded statistical comparison of treatment regimens.

Historically, feline mediastinal lymphoma has been associated with young age, positive feline leukaemia virus (FeLV) status, Siamese breed and short survival times. Recent studies following widespread FeLV vaccination in the UK are lacking. The aim of this retrospective multi-institutional study was to re-evaluate the signalment, retroviral status, response to chemotherapy, survival and prognostic indicators in feline mediastinal lymphoma cases in the post-vaccination era. Records of cats with clinical signs associated with a mediastinal mass and cytologically/histologically confirmed lymphoma were reviewed from five UK referral centres (1998–2010). Treatment response, survival and prognostic indicators were assessed in treated cats with follow-up data. Fifty-five cases were reviewed. The median age was 3 years (range, 0.5–12 years); 12 cats (21.8%) were Siamese; and the male to female ratio was 3.2:1.0. Five cats were FeLV-positive and two were feline immunodeficiency-positive. Chemotherapy response and survival was evaluated in 38 cats. Overall response was 94.7%; complete (CR) and partial response (PR) rates did not differ significantly between protocols: COP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone) (n = 26, CR 61.5%, PR 34.0%); Madison–Wisconsin (MW) (n = 12, CR 66.7%, PR 25.0%). Overall median survival was 373 days (range, 20–2015 days) (COP 484 days [range, 20–980 days]; MW 211 days [range, 24–2015 days] [ P = 0.892]). Cats achieving CR survived longer (980 days vs 42 days for PR; P = 0.032). Age, breed, sex, location (mediastinal vs mediastinal plus other sites), retroviral status and glucocorticoid pretreatment did not affect response or survival. Feline mediastinal lymphoma cases frequently responded to chemotherapy with durable survival times, particularly in cats achieving CR. The prevalence of FeLV-antigenaemic cats was low; males and young Siamese cats appeared to be over-represented.

Practical relevance: The ‘2022 ISFM/AAFP Cat Friendly Veterinary Environment Guidelines’ (hereafter the ‘Cat Friendly Veterinary Environment Guidelines’) describe how the veterinary clinic environment can be manipulated to minimise feline patient distress. Many components of a veterinary clinic visit or stay may result in negative experiences for cats. However, much can be done to improve a cat’s experience by making the veterinary clinic more cat friendly. Exposure to other cats and other species can be reduced, and adjustments made with consideration of the feline senses and species-specific behaviour. Caregivers can prepare cats for a clinic visit with appropriate advice. Waiting rooms, examination rooms, hospital wards and other clinic areas can be designed and altered to reduce stress and hence encourage positive emotions. Changes need not be structural or expensive in order to be effective and make a difference to the cats and, in turn, to cat caregivers and the veterinary team. Moreover, by improving the all-round experience at the veterinary clinic, there are positive effects on preventive healthcare, identification of and recovery from illness, and compliance with treatment. Clinical challenges: Good feline healthcare necessitates visiting the veterinary clinic, which, simply by being outside of a cat’s territory and familiar surroundings, may lead to negative experiences. Such experiences can trigger negative (protective) emotions and associated physiological stress, which can result in misleading clinical findings, patient distress, prolonged recovery from illness, further difficulties with handling at subsequent visits and potential veterinary personnel injury. There may be a mistaken belief that veterinary clinics must undergo significant renovation or building work to become cat friendly, and that, if species cannot be separated, then clinics cannot improve their care of cats. These Guidelines aim to dispel any such misconceptions and provide detailed practical advice. Evidence base: These Guidelines have been created by a Task Force of experts convened by the International Society of Feline Medicine and American Association of Feline Practitioners, based on an extensive literature review and, where evidence is lacking, the authors’ experience. Endorsements: These Guidelines have been endorsed by a number of groups and organisations, as detailed on page 1161 and at icatcare.org/cat-friendly-guidelines and catvets.com/environment .